Little green idiots cause global warming

I agree, James. The MC speech was so long that I hadn't formerly read it all the way through. He makes some VERY good points on the way that science is currently being conducted, and the implications for the future if we can't find a way to get the politics out of science.

(HUGE HUGE CUT of Hanson comment and Michael Crichton speech)

James,

my next comments will no doubt piss off many enviros, but here goes. After spending 20+ years in the petrochemical industry, I think it's time for a career change. I have decided to teach high school math and science. When I get into the science teaching (August of 2005), I will be mindful of opportunities to educate the starry eyed teens regarding the uncertainties involved with AGW, and the general sloppy science trends that Michael Crichton spoke so eloquently about in his long speech. I will do whatever I can to point out self-serving government propaganda, and I will attempt to get these teens to do some thinking for themselves, rather than let the press and propaganda mills do their thinking for them.

In effect, I will have a good chance of opening their minds a bit before they become thoroughly convinced by various groups pushing their own agendas. It should be fun.

COOL, CHARLIE! CONGRATULATIONS!

In a prior post (Little Green Idiots ...) I tackled the related topics of 'theory', 'science', 'proof', 'certainty', and so on. I will not repeat that material here, but instead I will originate a new topic: I propose that the United States launch a War on Global Warming.

I make this proposal because we like war. In terms of finding good wars to fight, this War on Global Warming, I assert, will be even better than the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq. Why? Well ... (1) The current evidence for, or the 'proof' of, the existence of human-induced global warming is significantly better than the pre-invasion evidence of Mr Hussein's WMD's. And, (2) Plagiarizing the reasoning of the Bush Administration, we can't afford to be wrong. In other words, while the magnitude of the threat may be difficult to estimate or 'prove', the horrific consequences of underestimating global warming will be even more devastating than the horrific consequences of underestimating Iraq.

So, to start this war, we don't need certitude or 'proof', we just need circumstances at least as threatening as those of the Hussein regime. These, we have. So let's get started.

What will we do? Invade General Motors, and halt the production of the private automobile? This may be too extreme even for aggressive conservatives, so I would propose we ramp up in a more systematic way.

First, bureaucracy: Just as we've created a Department of Homeland Security, let's create a Department of Climate Stabilization, having pretty much comparable powers and funding.

Second, information management: Just as we've reformed and coordinated foreign intelligence gathering (ask the President, we done did it!), let's do the same with climate data. Let's centralize data gathering and analysis on climate change, pulling in information from all over the world, and start to assemble a comprehensive national database that will settle once and for all what's really going on with the climate.

Third, funding: We're spending $50 billion a year on the War in Iraq. We should be spending the same amount, or more, on the War on Global Warming. If Chicago gets several million a year from the feds to thwart terrorists, it should get at least that amount to help thwart dependence on fossil fuel combustion.

Fourth, public relations and awareness: A soldier thinks his ride doesn't have enough armor? Well, OK, but if this is front page news, then let's see a equally prominent companion story about a techno-geek who thinks maintenance of African weather monitoring stations is inadequate. Every story about killed marines should be accompanied about by another dramatizing the premature death of people afflicted by bad air (15,000 a year, according to some sources

After '20+ years in the petrochemical industry', what agenda will you be

This is getting very long, so I will truncate. Those having difficulty following the argument may have to go backwards in the thread.

...

But, even Mr Crichton is debating the proper nexus between public policy and science. The two worlds do intersect, and usually with some justification. I made the point about Iran to show how we choose to act even absent solid scientific proof; the analogy to global warming policy, where the evidence is at least semi-solid, maybe better, should be obvious.

...

And so OK: Creationists argue that evolution is 'just a theory' because we cannot replicate and experiment with the evolutionary process. Would you therefore agree with them that creationism and evolution should be given equal weight in a high school curriculum?

...

Don't be so sure. Particle physics

I'll find out when I get there, won't I? Of course, anyone who has worked anywhere for 20+ years and then switched to teaching, would be open to the same comment, wouldn't they? The fact that someone starts in academia, and stays there for their whole career, shouldn't imply in any way that their opinion is somehow 'pure'. In fact, in many ways, such people are particularly uninformed for having no experience outside of academia.

Fine ... triffic. Pick a group it's relevant to and post it there ... not in a bunch of irrelevant ones

Thanks

I volunteer to help. We just got a new refigerator, and the old one is sitting outside. I'll plug it in tomorrow and leave the doors open.

What is this proof?

And what are the horrific consequences of underestimating global warming? Greenland becomes a green land again?

What is wrong with setting up a giant worldwide air conditioning system?

It can vary a lot. For instance: